>> (That section is already a bit less rigorous then it could be, since it refers to "RDF Literal S" rather than "RDF Plain Literal S without a language".)
>>
>> My personal preference would be that the XML results format suggest that implementations SHOULD serialize an RDF literal with type xs:string as:
>>
>> <binding><literal>S</literal></binding>
>>
>> ...excluding datatype="...string".
>>
>> I'd prefer that this be a SHOULD and not a MUST.
>
> Why? It's a relatively easy thing to implement, and it will make the clients job easier if there's only one form. Plus it will ease people into the RDF '04 -> RDF 1.1 transition.
It's "SHOULD" in RDF
[[
RESOLVED: to accept the proposal at
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
with the modification that preferred output form (SHOULD) is "foo" not
"foo"^^xsd:string in RDF; recommends that SPARQL and other WGs does the
same
]]
>
> - Steve
>
>> We'll need a volunteer to make whatever change we decide here and to help with the publication process. We'll publish this as both a FPWD and LCWD in our next publication cycle.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> On 6/15/2011 12:39 PM, David Wood wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The RDF working group resolved our ISSUE-12 [1] today, which is intended to "reconcile various forms of string literals".
>>>
>>> We resolved to accept the proposal at:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/StringLiterals/AbolishUntaggedPlain
>>> with the modification that preferred output form (SHOULD) is "foo" not "foo"^^xsd:string in RDF; and we recommend that SPARQL and other WGs do the same.
>>>
>>> Discussion highlighted several possible areas of concern, which we believe the current proposal addresses. Specifically, it was noted that:
>>>
>>> - The forms "foo" and "foo"^^xsd:string are equivalent input syntaxes.
>>> - The form "foo" is the preferred output syntax.
>>> - The WG suggests retaining the term "plain literal" in documents to avoid unnecessary rework. Such plain literals would be considered semantically equivalent to xsd:strings.
>>>
>>> NB: This resolution makes *no statement* about language-tagged literals (e.g. "foo"@en).
>>>
>>> We invite discussion regarding the ramifications of this resolution to other working groups and implementors.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>